Section 1 rule 131

Reyes v. Mangino (2005)

Facts:
Yolanda Reyes filed a complaint against Judge Marvin B. Mangino charging him with gross
ignorance of the law, extortion, graft and corruption, fraud and deception. Reyes is the accused in a
criminal case for other deceits where Mangino is the presiding judge. She avers that Mangino set up a
meeting at the lobby of Manila Hotel and assured them of the dismissal of the case. At the meeting,
P20,000 was paid to the respondent judge. Mangino subsequently told the spouses not to appear at the
promulgation of judgment anymore and promised to just send the copy of the decision through mail.
Another P40,000 was sent at the request of Mangino. The spouses received a copy of the decision finding
them guilty and liable to pay civil liability.
Judge Mangino denies the complainant’s allegations. In the investigation of the Executive Judge,
Mangino claimed that he could not have been at the alleged meeting at Manila Hotel since he solemnized
two marriages that morning in Tarlac and he couldn’t have gotten in Manila in time. However, upon
investigation of the Executive Judge, he discovered that the marriages he purportedly solemnized on the
same day were made on different dates and that the marriage contracts were sent to the couples bearing
an erroneous date (date of meeting). The Executive Judge recommended that Judge Mangino be
dismissed from service.

Issues: W/N Judge Mangino is guilty of extortion.

Held/Ratio:

NO. Judge Mangino cannot be held administratively liable on the ground of extortion and fraud.

In administrative proceedings, the burden of proof that the respondent committed the acts complained of
rests on the complainant. It is enough for the respondent to deny complicity in the alleged blackmail or
extortion, without more, for he is not under obligation to prove his negative averment.

Thus, if the latter fails to satisfactorily show the facts upon which he bases his claim, the respondent is
under no obligation to prove his defense. In this case, the complainant could have easily gathered enough
extrinsic evidence, such as testimonies of waiters, restaurant employees, or other disinterested witnesses,
to prove the alleged meeting with the respondent Judge. But the complainant failed to do so. She did not
even present a receipt of the expenses she incurred when she and the respondent judge took "snacks" at
the coffee shop near the lobby of the Manila Hotel to at least prove that she had been there on September
18, 1997. Moreover, if the respondent had, indeed, made corrupt overtures and blatantly demanded
money from the complainant, good sense would dictate that the matter be immediately reported to the
authorities to set up entrapment operations against the culprit

Where the charge on which removal is sought is misconduct in office, willful neglect, corruption, or
incompetence, the general rules in regard to admissibility of evidence in criminal trials apply. The ground
for the removal of a judicial officer should be established beyond reasonable doubt.

People vs Manhuyod

Facts:

This is a case of a father having raped his 17-year old

daughter. On 8 June 1995, Yolanda and Relanne Manhuyod
gave their sworn statements to Atty. Tomarong of the NBI.
On even date, Relanne, assisted by Yolanda, filed a
complaint with the Provincial Prosecutors Office charging
herein accused with rape committed on 3 May 1995. The
accused entered a plea of not guilty.

Thereafter, the prosecution, with conformity of the accused,

filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that Relanne and
Yolanda had executed a Joint Affidavit of Desistance,
declaring that they lost interest in the further prosecution of
the [case] as the case arose out of a family conflict which
was [already] patched up; thus the prosecution declared
that without the testimonies of the complainants, the
prosecution cannot prove the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt.

However, the trial court denied the Motion to Dismiss on the

following grounds: (1) the affidavit of desistance could not
justify dismissal of the complaint, as the so-called pardon
extended to accused by affiants in the affidavit of desistance
was made after the filing of the information and (2) once a
complaint for a private crime was filed, the State effectively
became the offended party and any pardon given by the
private complainant would be unavailing. The trial rendered
a decision which provides that the accused, SPO2
Manhuyod, Jr. guilty of the crime of Rape by force and
intimidation with [the] aggravating circumstance of
relationship under Article 15 of the Revised Penal Code.

The accused filed an appeal. He argued that the affidavits of

the Yolanda and Relanne were inadmissible hearsay since
they were not presented in the witness stand. Accused
further contended that what was established during trial
was that Relanne and Yolanda were no longer interested in
pursuing the criminal complaint against him; hence the case
should have been dismissed for their lack of interest to
prosecute the same.

Issue: Whether or not the affidavits of the mother and the

offended party admissible.

Held:
No, the evidence for the prosecution failed miserably in
meeting the quantum of proof required in criminal cases to
overturn the constitutional presumption of innocence. In
view of the desistance of the offended party, Relanne, and
her mother, Yolanda, and their failure to appear and testify
at trial, the prosecution was left with nothing but their
sworn statements.

It is settled that unless the affiants themselves take the

witness stand to affirm the averments in their affidavits, the
affidavits must be excluded from a judicial proceeding for
being inadmissible hearsay. The rationale for this is respect
for the accused constitutional right of confrontation, or to
meet the witnesses against him face-to-face. With particular
reference to criminal cases, the requirement of examination
of witnesses in open court is in place to fully accord the
accused his right to meet the witness againt him face to
face.

People vs de guzman

Facts: